1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to the respiratory care of a patient and, more particularly, to a ventilator monitor system that receives a plurality of ventilator support signals indicative of the sufficiency of ventilation support received by the patient, receives at least one ventilator signal indicative of the level settings of the ventilator setting controls of the ventilator, and determines the desired level settings of the ventilator setting controls of the ventilator to provide the appropriate quality and quantity of ventilation support to the patient.
2. Background
Mechanical ventilatory support is widely accepted as an effective form of therapy and means for treating patients with respiratory failure. Ventilation is the process of delivering oxygen to and washing carbon dioxide from the alveoli in the lungs. When receiving ventilatory support, the patient becomes part of a complex interactive system which is expected to provide adequate ventilation and promote gas exchange to aid in the stabilization and recovery of the patient. Clinical treatment of a ventilated patient often calls for monitoring a patient's breathing to detect an interruption or an irregularity in the breathing pattern, for triggering a ventilator to initiate assisted breathing, and for interrupting the assisted breathing periodically to wean the patient off of the assisted breathing regime, thereby restoring the patient's ability to breath independently.
In those instances in which a patient requires mechanical ventilation due to respiratory failure, a wide variety of mechanical ventilators are available. Most modern ventilators allow the clinician to select and use several modes of inhalation either individually or in combination via the ventilator setting controls that are common to the ventilators. These modes can be defined in three broad categories: spontaneous, assisted or controlled. During spontaneous ventilation without other modes of ventilation, the patient breathes at his own pace, but other interventions may affect other parameters of ventilation including the tidal volume and the baseline pressure, above ambient, within the system. In assisted ventilation, the patient initiates the inhalation by lowering the baseline pressure by varying degrees, and then the ventilator “assists” the patient by completing the breath by the application of positive pressure. During controlled ventilation, the patient is unable to breathe spontaneously or initiate a breath, and is therefore dependent on the ventilator for every breath. During spontaneous or assisted ventilation, the patient is required to “work” (to varying degrees) by using the respiratory muscles in order to breath.
The work of breathing (the work to initiate and sustain a breath) performed by a patient to inhale while intubated and attached to the ventilator may be divided into two major components: physiologic work of breathing (the work of breathing of the patient) and breathing apparatus imposed resistive work of breathing. The work of breathing can be measured and quantified in Joules/L of ventilation. In the past, techniques have been devised to supply ventilatory therapy to patients for the purpose of improving patient's efforts to breath by decreasing the work of breathing to sustain the breath. Still other techniques have been developed that aid in the reduction of the patient's inspiratory work required to trigger a ventilator system “ON” to assist the patient's breathing. It is desirable to reduce the effort expended by the patient in each of these phases, since a high work of breathing load can cause further damage to a weakened patient or be beyond the capacity or capability of small or disabled patients. It is further desirable to deliver the most appropriate mode, and, intra-mode, the most appropriate quality and quantity of ventilation support required the patient's current physiological needs.
The early generation of mechanical ventilators, prior to the mid-1960s, were designed to support alveolar ventilation and to provide supplemental oxygen for those patients who were unable to breathe due to neuromuscular impairment. Since that time, mechanical ventilators have become more sophisticated and complicated in response to increasing understanding of lung pathophysiology. Larger tidal volumes, an occasional “sigh breath,” and a low level of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) were introduced to overcome the gradual decrease in functional residual capacity (FRC) that occurs during positive-pressure ventilation (PPV) with lower tidal volumes and no PEEP. Because a decreased functional residual capacity is the primary pulmonary defect during acute lung injury, continuous positive pressure (CPAP) and PEEP became the primary modes of ventilatory support during acute lung injury.
In an effort to improve a patient's tolerance of mechanical ventilation, assisted or patient-triggered ventilation modes were developed. Partial PPV support, in which mechanical support supplements spontaneous ventilation, became possible for adults outside the operating room when intermittent mandatory ventilation (IMV) became available in the 1970s. Varieties of “alternative” ventilation modes addressing the needs of severely impaired patients continue to be developed.
The second generation of ventilators was characterized by better electronics but, unfortunately, due to attempts to replace the continuous high gas flow IMV system with imperfect demand flow valves, failed to deliver high flow rates of gas in response to the patient's inspiratory effort. This apparent advance forced patient to perform excessive imposed work and thus, total work in order to overcome ventilator, circuit, and demand flow valve resistance and inertia. In recent years, microprocessors have been introduced into modern ventilators. Microprocessor ventilators are typically equipped with sensors that monitor breath-by-breath flow, pressure, volume, and derive mechanical respiratory parameters. Their ability to sense and transduce “accurately,” combined with computer technology, makes the interaction between clinician, patient, and ventilator more sophisticated than ever. The prior art microprocessor controlled ventilators suffered from compromised accuracy due to the placement of the sensors required to transduce the data signals. Consequently, complicated algorithms were developed so that the ventilators could “approximate” what was actually occurring within the patient's lungs on a breath by breath basis. In effect, the computer controlled prior art ventilators were limited to the precise, and unyielding, nature of the mathematical algorithms which attempted to mimic cause and effect in the ventilator support provided to the patient.
Unfortunately, as ventilators become more complicated and offer more options, the number of potentially dangerous clinical decisions increases. The physicians, nurses, and respiratory therapists that care for the critically ill are faced with expensive, complicated machines with few clear guidelines for their effective use. The setting, monitoring, and interpretation of some ventilatory parameters have become more speculative and empirical, leading to potentially hazardous misuse of these new ventilator modalities. For example, the physician taking care of the patient may decide to increase the pressure support ventilation (PSV) level based on the displayed spontaneous breathing frequency. This may result in an increase in the work of breathing of the patient which may not be appropriate. This “parameter-monitor” approach, unfortunately, threatens the patient with the provision of inappropriate levels of pressure support.
Ideally, ventilatory support should be tailored to each patient's existing pathophysiology, rather than employing a single technique for all patients with ventilatory failure (i.e., in the example above, of the fallacy of using spontaneous breathing frequency to accurately infer a patient's work of breathing). Thus, current ventilatory support ranges from controlled mechanical ventilation to total spontaneous ventilation with CPAP for support of oxygenation and the elastic work of breathing and restoration of lung volume. Partial ventilation support bridges the gap for patients who are able to provide some ventilation effort but who cannot entirely support their own alveolar ventilation. The decision-making process regarding the quality and quantity of ventilatory support is further complicated by the increasing knowledge of the effect of mechanical ventilation on other organ systems.
The overall performance of the assisted ventilatory system is determined by both physiological and mechanical factors. The physiological determinants, which include the nature of the pulmonary disease, the ventilatory efforts of the patient, and many other physiological variables, changes with time and are difficult to diagnosis. Moreover, the physician historically had relatively little control over these determinants. Mechanical input to the system, on the other hand, is to a large extent controlled and can be reasonably well characterized by examining the parameters of ventilator flow, volume, and/or pressure. Optimal ventilatory assistance requires both appropriately minimizing physiologic workloads to a tolerable level and decreasing imposed resistive workloads to zero. Doing both should insure that the patient is neither overstressed nor oversupported. Insufficient ventilatory support places unnecessary demands upon the patient's already compromised respiratory system, thereby inducing or increasing respiratory muscle fatigue. Excessive ventilatory support places the patient at risk for pulmonary-barotrauma, respiratory muscle deconditioning, and other complications of mechanical ventilation.
Unfortunately, none of the techniques devised to supply ventilatory support for the purpose of improving patient efforts to breath, by automatically decreasing imposed work of breathing to zero and appropriately decreasing physiologic work once a ventilator system has been triggered by a patient's inspiratory effort, provides the clinician with advice in the increasingly complicated decision-making process regarding the quality and quantity of ventilatory support. As noted above, it is desirable to reduce the effort expended by the patient to avoid unnecessary medical complications of the required respiratory support and to deliver the most appropriate mode, and, intra-mode, the most appropriate quality and quantity of ventilation support required the patient's current physiological needs. Even using the advanced microprocessor controlled modern ventilators, the prior art apparatus and methods tend to depend upon mathematical models for determination of necessary actions. For example, a ventilator may sense that the hemoglobin oxygen saturation level of the patient is inappropriately low and, from the sensed data and based upon a determined mathematical relationship, the ventilator may determine that the oxygen content of the breathing gas supplied to the patient should be increased. This is similar to, and unfortunately as inaccurate as, a physician simply looking at a patient turning “blue” and determining more oxygen is needed.
From the above, in the complicated decision-making environment engendered by the modern venilator, it is clear that it would be desirable to have a medical ventilator monitor system that alerts the clinician of the ventilator's failure to supply the appropriate quality and quantity of ventilatory support and provides advice to the clinician regarding the appropriate quality and quantity of ventilatory support that is tailored to the patient's pathophysiology. Such a ventilatory monitor system is unavailable in current systems.